Van's Reply:You are mistaken. On my program I stated, and then re-stated, and then after reading the first few lines of your email while I was still on the air, I asked my guest if he understood my position and he succinctly stated, and I will say, accurately stated the position I expressed on my Sunday program. Somehow you seemed to misunderstand what I thought I had clearly declared. I will try one more time.

I declare that most members believe the BM is a translation of an ancient history. I am not aware of any statement by any General Authority, past or present, which could be interpreted as belief that the BM is not a translation of an ancient history. So what I am saying is that a significant majority of LDS members and, as far as I can tell, all General Authorities believe that the BM tells of events and characters related to ancient America. If this is not clear enough, let me know and I will try to find some other way to make my position clearer to you.

Further, my position for the past 25 years has been that the BM was written as a tool for persuasion, not as a history book. I have maintained that I believe BM historicity is only significant for those who are trying to prove or disprove that JS was a prophet. I insist that the LDS religion is about faith, testimony, inspiration, morality, standards of human behavior, man's purpose and destiny. While some religionists declare that they can prove various supernatural claims, in fact no discipline of science or history has been able to prove the existence of God, the historicity of the Genesis accounts of creation or the actuality of the resurrection of Jesus. Those who believe, do so based upon religious faith and spiritually, not on the proofs of science.

There is no reason for me to believe that Mormonism has any responsibility to prove the BM is a miraculous translation of an ancient history, thus proving JS to be a prophet any more than any other Christian must prove God exists or that Jesus was resurrected.

So, the importance of the BM has nothing to do with history. Rather, it's importance is the power that it has exhibited since 1830 in inspiring millions of readers to change their lives and commit themselves to participate in the Restoration effected by God through JS.

You assert that if it is not history, it is not true. I assert that if it came from God as a religious book which is a complex literary form for the purpose of presenting true principles to persuade, then it is true. Religiously speaking, Lehi's dream of the tree of life is true regardless of whether he exists only in thepages of the BM narrative or as an ancient American historical figure.

We are constantly presented with various literary devices which present a truth clothed in what appears to be a historical narrative to persuade. Billions of dollars are spent each year to persuade in this manner because it is well-known that it is a powerful tool. I suggest that the BM has been very powerful because it speaks to people through characters with names who confront various situations and exhibit a wide array of human strengths and weaknesses, which, when read with a certain openness, leads readers to the conviction that they have encountered God within the pages of the book.

Back when I was a teenager and an active member of the church, I recall frequently hearing about Mormonism's version of Manifest Destiny...that being that North America is a sacred land set apart by God with the specific purpose of creating the United States in order to have a religiously free nation in which to restore his true church and where it could flourish.

I also frequently heard that the founding fathers of this nation all appeared to Joseph Smith and it was directly from these visits that the church acquired its belief of "Mormom Manifest Destiny." Your thoughts please.

I had it wrong about Joseph Smith having a visit from the founding fathers. My mistake. Glad one of your listeners responded to that. It was Pres. Snow who had the visit in St. George? If not Snow then who?

If so, why did it sound so "bizarre" to you when I said it was Joseph Smith? I mean, I had the wrong prophet, but a prophet of the church did in fact make that claim. And, it would not seem at all bizarre to me to think of J.S. having made such a claim. Smith claimed that many, many individuals visited him. So, what seemed so bizarre to you? Just the fact that I made a mistake?

What do you think of Snow's claim? Do you believe that some of the founding fathers actually visited him in St. George? Could you please give me the reference to the account of this event?

I spent the Evening in preparing a list of the Noted Men of the 17 Centaury and 18th including the signers of the declaration of Independance for Baptism on 21 Aug 1877.

I will here say, before closing that two weekws before I left St. George, the spirits of the dead gathered around me, wanting to know why we did not redeem them. Said they, "You have had the use of the Endowment House for a number of years, and yet nothing has ever been done for us. We laid the foundation of the government you now enjoy, and we never apostatisezed from it, but we remained true to it and were faithful to God." These were the signers of the Declaration of Independence, and they waited on me for two days and two nights. I thought it very singular, that notwithstanding so much work had been done, and yet nothing had been done for them. The thought never entered my heart, from the fact, I suppose, that heretofore our minds were reaching after our more immediate friends and relatives. I straightway went into the baptismal font and called upon Brother McAllister to baptize me for the signers of the Declaration of Independence, and fifty other eminent men, making one hundred in all, including John Wesley, Columbus, and others. I then baptized him for every President of the United States, except three; and when their cause is just, somebody will do the work for them. (Source: Journal of Discourses 16:229)